Yes, I've seen no convincing evidence of the existence of a soul or anything else supernatural. You're also a purely physical entity, physical like a rock, a bunch of atoms arranged in a matter to make you.
To someone without a soul it's impossible for them to conceive of anyone else having a soul. Language refers to things and if the thing I refer to you can't comprehend it's because it's not something you have to be referred to to know the same thing that I'm talking about when I talk of it. A soul is something that if you don't have it you don't know that you don't have it. The only way to know what it is and that it exists is to have it. That which does not exist doesn't know what it's missing. It does not know of that which does exist. Don't worry, a lot of humans fail the Turing test.
The only way to see the evidence is to be the evidence. If you can't see the evidence then you're not the evidence. Thus, you have no soul. You're a zombie.
You might think you're being clever but you're not. You see the thing you're asking for proof and evidence of is the entire thing that morality depends on.
Why is torture wrong? If you can't suffer for real, feel pain for real, then in your case it's not. If I can't prove it, it doesn't bode well for you.
That's not how evidence works. "What is your evidence that this murder took place?" "Look at him, he is the evidence!"
Prove objective morality exists. To me (and, I assume, to you), torture is wrong because we can empathize with the person being tortured and know it's not something we'd like to experience, and in my opinion there's no positive outcome to ourselves or society that outweighs that suffering.
Yes, I've seen no convincing evidence of the existence of a soul or anything else supernatural. You're also a purely physical entity, physical like a rock, a bunch of atoms arranged in a matter to make you.
To someone without a soul it's impossible for them to conceive of anyone else having a soul. Language refers to things and if the thing I refer to you can't comprehend it's because it's not something you have to be referred to to know the same thing that I'm talking about when I talk of it. A soul is something that if you don't have it you don't know that you don't have it. The only way to know what it is and that it exists is to have it. That which does not exist doesn't know what it's missing. It does not know of that which does exist. Don't worry, a lot of humans fail the Turing test.
That's a nice cope, but I'd like to see the evidence.
The only way to see the evidence is to be the evidence. If you can't see the evidence then you're not the evidence. Thus, you have no soul. You're a zombie.
You might think you're being clever but you're not. You see the thing you're asking for proof and evidence of is the entire thing that morality depends on.
Why is torture wrong? If you can't suffer for real, feel pain for real, then in your case it's not. If I can't prove it, it doesn't bode well for you.
That's not how evidence works. "What is your evidence that this murder took place?" "Look at him, he is the evidence!"
Prove objective morality exists. To me (and, I assume, to you), torture is wrong because we can empathize with the person being tortured and know it's not something we'd like to experience, and in my opinion there's no positive outcome to ourselves or society that outweighs that suffering.